Full frame vs crop sensor

[m_padget]

<p>Please forgive me for asking questions that some of you may think have been answered adequately already in these pages! You will also have to forgive me if I have misunderstood certain of the things that I have read over the course of what has proved to be a long day.<br>

Having owned a Canon 350D for several years, I am looking to upgrade to a higher quality camera. I thought that I had found a good balance of body and lenses for my rather limited budget when I settled on the 50D and the 17-55 EF-S 2.8 lens (about £1300 new here in the UK). However, on reading through the pages of photo.net and looking at various reviews, I'm not sure of the wisdom of this prospective purchase. Specifically, I'm somewhat reluctant to purchase EF-S lenses that are not compatible with full-frame sensors, IF it is the case that over the course of the next five or years Canon moves away from the use of crop sensors in future models. I wish, after all, to invest in quality lenses that I intend to use for a number of years.<br>

So really my two-part question is this: first, what are the drawbacks of using lenses designed for full-frame cameras with the 50D and other cameras (such as the 7D) with crop sensors (my thinking being that these lenses would serve for a future upgrade to full frame sensor); second, would I simply be better served by saying to hell with that budget and making what for me would be a major investment in the 5D, Mark II with 24-105 kit lens (which, course adds £1,000 to what I was intending to spend!). <br>

I do realise that the second question stirs things up a bit, but surely I'm not the only person trawling through these pages who's left wondering when exactly it's worth spending more or less on gear.<br>

I should add that my main interests are in landscape, urban scenes, portraits (mostly spontaneous and of my young children!), and not so much in sports or wildlife photography. I have never been one to swap and change cameras, so it is essential to me that I chose the correct outfit. Oh yes, one other thought: I'm really not bothered by a camera's capacity for recording video footage as my wife is a professional filmmaker and owns a Sony EX3 camera as well as a little flip camera.<br>

Many thanks for any thoughts on what is, after all, a pleasant dilemma to have. <br>

Martin</p>

<p> </p>

[paddler4]

<blockquote>

<p>what are the drawbacks of using lenses designed for full-frame cameras with the 50D and other cameras (such as the 7D) with crop sensors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None, except that they are often bulkier. Two of the lenses I use on my 50D are full-frame compatible.</p>

<p>I personally have not worried about eventual obsolescence of the EF-S lenses. No one can predict the future, but there are an awful lot of crop sensor cameras out there, and Canon keeps introducing crop sensor bodies and lenses.</p>

<p>I have no first-hand experience with full frame sensor cameras, but there have been many postings on this question, so you should be able to find some by searching. I know that Ben Goren has posted on this several times, so you could search on his name.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>There are no real drawbacks to using non-EFS lenses on cropped sensor cameras, as long as you can find lenses with the right combination of focal length and other features for your cropped sensor camera photography.</p>

<p>As to the FF v. cropped sensor question, a cropped sensor camera will do an excellent job in almost all cases. If you shoot very carefully and make quite large prints there may be significant advantages in FF.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[awahlster]

<p>Interesting I saw the same question asked in a thread 5 years ago. Will Canon be making crop sensor cameras in the future.<br>

One guy ventured he was sure they would still be making them well past 2010 (guess he is getting pretty damn close to being a fortune teller.<br>

That said it's interesting the thought mentality that bring this question up at all.<br>

I currently shoot with a Canon FD system that the newest part of it was sold in 1986. 24 years ago and yet the slide coming from that system (I have 11 bodies and 38 lenses) are stunning. Razor sharp with brilliant colors and everything a person would want. In short the pinicle of 35mm photography be it the Olympic's National Geographic the best wedding photographers etc.<br>

I also shoot with Leica and Canon rangefinder gear that is now rapidly approching 60 years old. And yet the slides and prints from that system are razor sharp with brilliant colors or beautiful smooth glows the B&W's are to die for.<br>

Yet now a camera thought to be the pinicle of digital photography is being planned to be replaced before it is even purchased now. And person second guess's their decisions based on products not even brought to market yet.<br>

I think to much is dedicated to the equipment and little if anything to the ART of modern photography.<br>

If you buy a camera today will it not continue to produce photographs and to help you create art until it is no longer functioning? Irrgaurdless of how many models have superceded it?<br>

My wife shoots amazing photo's of her garden and our grand daughters with a Canon G3 c(2002) we bought in 2004 right after it was discontinued. Yet it has been one upped by the G5 G6 G7 G9 G10 G11. yet the photo's it takes still have all the magic they did when it was first released</p>

<p>IMHO</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>For your applications, the 5D II would be a better choice than either the 50D or the 7D. The crop bodies give you more effective reach, and the 7D has a better AF system, neither of which you particularly need. In all other respects, not least of all image quality, the 5D II is the superior camera.</p>

<p>My applications are very similar to yours, and I opted for the 5D II (w/ the EF 24-105/4 IS L) as my first DSLR. Since then I have acquired several EF zooms and primes, and could not be happier.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I would suggest that you save up for a 5D - probably wait for the 5DIII or whatever it will be called as I am sure it will improve on the 5DII and arrive in less than 18 months. I have both the 5DII and 7D and use almost exclusively full frame lenses on the 7D (I do have the EF-S 18-135 that was thrown in cheaply with the camera but I almost never use it as it is not the greatest lens). For general shooting I use the 16-35 f2.8 II and the 70-200 F4 IS the most on my 7D. For sports I use the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) and the 300 f4 IS. I will also use the 100 F2.8 L IS Macro and 85 F1.8. All of these lenses are great on the 7D - indeed the Macro is amazingly sharp on the 7D. The only disadvantage of using full frame lenses on the 7D is that you cannot get a true wide angle except for fisheyes.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Given a choice, I would pick full frame every time. Only issues I have with the crop body is the noise I get in the blue sky even at the lowest ISO and the DOF on the full frame is better. Last important reason why I love full frame over the crop, the 70-200 2.8 IS becomes usable indoors. To me the 70-200 2.8 IS is the best zoom I have ever used and on my 7D it's way too long. v/r Buffdr</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>For landscape, portrait, and urban scenes full frame is the way to go. The crop sensor bodies handle sports, and wildlife better, which you don't do. </p>

<p>I am not a huge fan of the 24-105/4 L IS though. Depending on what lenses you already have there may be better options to at least consider.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>For landscape, portrait, and urban scenes full frame is the way to go. The crop sensor bodies handle sports, and wildlife better, which you don't do. </p>

<p>I am not a huge fan of the 24-105/4 L IS though. Depending on what lenses you already have there may be better options to at least consider.</p>

[c jensen]

<p>I like Mark W's response. There are plenty of images on-line taken by really talented photographers using 350D's, 400D's etc - that are better than any shot I have ever taken with my 5D mII. Unfortunately I haven't been able to spend myself into being a great photographer!</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>I am looking to upgrade to a higher quality camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is a higher-quality camera to you? You could get a used EOS 5D (old version) and have a dSLR way superior to your 350D, but which is still 2005-6 vintage in terms of features (no sensor cleaning, no Live View, no video etc.). You don't have to spend tons of money to buy a new camera to improve quality and you can use EF lenses that will be compatible to every full-frame and APS-C Canon body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish, after all, to invest in quality lenses that I intend to use for a number of years.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Buying lenses is not marriage. You can change your gear whenever you want. You don't have to feel like you must keep it if you made an unwise decision. Buy second-hand and your financial loss will be minimal. If you have a crop-factor camera it makes sense to have at least one or two dedicated lenses for it (especially for the wide end).</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>When I first started reading this forums, there were people that were stating stay away from ef-s lens as they will become obsolete when Canon quits making cropped cameras. Canon makes and sells more crop cameras then full frame. I thought they knew what they wrote when they made such statements about ef-s lens, they were wrong. I have both types of cameras but would not have been so hesitant to have bought ef-s lens in the beginning. What you mentioned is a good combination from what I have read, I don't have the lens but I do have the camera.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Crop sensors are here to stay. Canon has never given the slightest indication otherwise—it always amazes me when people talk about a mythical future in which crop sensor cameras are no longer made and EF-S lenses suddenly become obsolete.</p>

<p>Lenses also hold their value better than the vast majority of other electronics out there. You will still lose money selling them, however, so if you are certain that you are going to go full-frame in the near future (e.g. one year), it makes sense to limit yourself to EF lenses exclusively. Otherwise, just get whatever is going to net you the best images now, and worry about the future later.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>Having a 5D MkII I would be a somewhat concerned that your one use "mostly spontaneous and of my young children!" would be a little harder. The 5D has no pop up flash, and in real spontaneous situations it is hard to live with out. Sometimes I pack an old point and shoot for those situations. For all the other areas it will excel.</p>

<p>One thing about the video, a 5D MkII is capable of much better video than the sony. It would need some support equipment to make that happen, but the sensor in the 5D MkII is huge compared to the sony. If you get a 5D MkII you may loose it to your better half.</p>

<p>Overall though, there are a lot of good choices. But, IMO both the 50D and 5D MkII will be getting updates soon and so your potential financial investment will change in the next year or so. Though I don't see EF-s going away anytime soon, it has its appeal in size and costs.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I own both the 5D2 and the 7D. If I didn't shoot a few thousand bird and wildlife images per month, I'd only use the 5D2. I think that the 5D2 is best for scenics, portraits, travels, etc. OTOH, the 7D blows it away for birds and wildlife, due to better AF, crop-sensor and higher shutter burst rate.</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>what are the drawbacks of using lenses designed for full-frame cameras with the 50D and other cameras (such as the 7D) with crop sensors </em></p>

<p>One drawback is that if you are photographing in backlight and the light source is just outside of the (crop) frame but within the full frame image circle. In such cases, massive flare and ghosting is often experienced (using crop cameras). However, it's a special situation that some photographers encounter more than others. For me, it was an issue as I frequently use this kind of lighting.</p>

[dave_b15]

<blockquote>

<p>I should add that my main interests are in <strong>landscape</strong>, urban scenes, portraits (mostly spontaneous and of my young children!), and not so much in sports or wildlife photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Landscape -> Full frame - Do not pass Go.</p>

<p>Want more justification? Read on.<br>

Urban scenes? You get some pretty large contrast changes with shade and whatnot around and between buildings. You need more dynamic range and less noise. Full frame again.<br>

Portraits? Big enlargements; which means less noise -> full frame: Do not pass Go.</p>

<p>The suggestion above to get a used 5D would be perfect for you (or a used 5dII when the next iteration comes out) and you can spend the savings on some red ringed lenses.</p>

[richard_oleson]

<p>I've never encountered any drawbacks at all using full-frame lenses on a crop camera. Only two of my lenses are EF-S (the kit lens and a 10-22 wide angle) ... everything from 50mm on up is a full frame lens, and I've never encountered any particular flare or other problems.</p>

[plangereis]

<p>I have a 40D and use the 70-200 f4 IS lens a lot with it. The image quality is awesome, although the focal range I such that i cannot get any encompassing scenes unless a long way back. I have the same idea as you. I was thinking of upgrading to a 5D MK II, but will most likely wait until a new version of that camera comes out. As far as my 40 D goes, that will remain as a backup camera. Good luck.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I think we need to read beyond the "code words" in the posts if we are to make useful recommendations. For example, the word <em>"landscape"</em> could imply that the person makes 24 x 36 prints of landscape subjects suitable for hanging in a gallery... or that the person likes to photograph landscapes and share them on his/her blog at 600 pixel width... or a number of other possibilities. It makes a difference.</p>

<p>In the former case (e.g. - really big prints), using full frame has some real advantages for photographers who shoot carefully and know how to handle the post-processing and printing stuff.</p>

<p>In the second case, a cropped sensor camera will work just great - and there would be virtually no advantage in using a full frame camera in terms of resolution or "image quality." In fact, a cropped sensor camera used well can produce 13 x 19 prints that most viewers be will be unable to distinguish from photographs made with a full frame camera, even if both are compared side by side. A skillful photographer can make even larger prints from cropped sensor originals that will look great.</p>

<p>I think it is tremendously important for the OP to think carefully about how he shoots and what he will do with the photographs before reflexively assuming that a full-frame camera is going to be better. It might be, or it might not.</p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>who shoots full frame.</p>

[m_padget]

<p>Many thanks for the helpful responses. Still not quite sure which way to go, but I'll ponder your various thoughts and make a decision in the coming week!</p>

<p>Martin</p>